ANECOLOGICALANALSYSISOFFACTORSAFFECTINGTECHNOLOGYUSES

INSCHOOLS1

YongZhao
KenFrank
MichiganStateUniveristy

Contactinformation:YongZhao,115DErickson,CollegeofEducation,MichiganState
Univeristy,EastLansing,MI48824,Email:zhaoyo@msu.edu,Phone:5173534325

ThisstudywasmadepossiblebyagrantfromtheMichiganDepartmentofEducation(MDE),butviews
andfindingsexpressedinthisreportarenotnecessarilythoseofMDE.Thefollowingindividualsparticipatedinthe
designandimplementationofthisstudy:YongZhao,KenFrank,BlaineMorrow,KathrynHershey,JoeByers,
RickBanghart,AndrewHenry,andNancyHewat.Althoughwecannotidentifythenamesoftheschoolsthat
participatedinthisstudy,wewanttothankalltheteachersandadministratorsinthese19schools.Withouttheir
cooperationandsupport,thisstudywouldnothavebeenpossible.

Abstract

Whyisn'ttechnologyusedmoreinschools?Whycan'tinnovationsthatseemtohold
greatpromisebeadoptedbyschoolsinspiteofgreatefforts?Manyresearchershavebeen
searchingforsolutionstothispersistentpuzzle.Inthispaper,weextendexistingresearchon
technologyintegrationanddiffusionofinnovationsbyinvestigatingrelationshipsamongthe
longlistoffactorsthathavealreadybeenidentifiedtoberelatedtoschooltechnologyuses.In
particular,weusethemetaphorofanecosystemtotheoreticallyintegrateandorganizesetsof
factorsthataffectimplementationofcomputertechnology.Wealsohopethatthisframework
willhelpusbetterunderstandothereducationalinnovations.Weconductedastudyof
technologyusesin19schoolsinfourdistricts.Findingsofthisstudysuggestthattheecological
perspectivecanbeapowerfulanalyticalframeworkforunderstandingtechnologyusesin
schools.Thisframeworkpointsoutnewdirectionsforresearchandhassignificantpolicyand
practicalimplicationsforimplementinginnovationstoschools.

TechnologyUsesinSchools
ANECOLOGICALANALSYSISOFFACTORSAFFECTINGTECHNOLOGY
USESINSCHOOLS

Likemanyeducationalreformefforts,theintroductionoftechnologyinschools
hasbeenlessthansuccessful.Overthelastcenturytherewereseveralwavesofmassive
investmentintechnologytoimproveeducation,butnonehashadsignificantlasting
impactoneducation(Cuban,1986).Themostrecentmovementtoputcomputersin
schoolshassofarmetthesamefateaspreviousattempts.Despitethegenerous
investmentin,andincreasedpresenceof,computersinschools(Anderson&Ronnkvist,
1999;Becker,2000b;Cattagni&Farris,2001),computershavebeenfoundtobeunused
orunderusedinmostschools(Cuban,1999,2001;Loveless,1996;Zhao,Pugh,Sheldon,
&Byers,2002).
Whyisnttechnologyusedmoreinschools?Similarquestionshavebeenasked
aboutmanyotherfailededucationalinnovations.Whycantinnovationsthatseemto
holdgreatpromisebeadoptedbyschoolsinspiteofgreatefforts?(Fullan,1991;Tyack
&Cuban,1995).Manyresearchershavebeensearchingforsolutionstothispersistent
puzzle.Inthispaper,wecontinuethissearchbyexaminingfactorsassociatedwith
technologyadoptioninschools.Butwedonotintendtosimplyrepeatpreviousresearch
tosearchfornewfactorsthatmayaffecttechnologyusesinschoolsbecausewebelieve
previousresearchhasidentifiedmost,ifnotall,factorsthatmayhaveaneffectonhow
andhowmuchtechnologyisusedinschools.Whatisneededisanintegratingframework
thatcanprovidenewdirectionsforresearchandspecificsuggestionsforpolicyand
practice.Thuswetakeitasourresponsibilitytoextendexistingresearchbyinvestigating
therelationshipsamongthelonglistoffactorsthathavealreadybeenidentifiedtobe
relatedtoschooltechnologyuses.Inparticular,weusethemetaphorofanecosystemto
theoreticallyintegrateandorganizesetsoffactorsthataffectimplementationofcomputer

TechnologyUsesinSchools
technology.Wealsohopethatthisframeworkwillhelpusbetterunderstandother
educationalinnovations,sincetechnology,inourview,isaspecialcaseofinnovation.
Westartourinvestigationwithasummaryoffactorsthathavealreadybeen
identifiedtohaveanimpactontechnologyadoptioninschools.Wethenpresentthe
ecosystemmetaphorandframework.Afterthat,wereportastudythatwasdesignedto
testtheutilityoftheframeworkandprovidedetailsoftheframework.Finally,wediscuss
theimplicationsoftheframeworkforfutureresearch,policy,andpractice.

FactorsAssociatedwithTechnologyUsesinSchools

Implementationoftechnologyisacomplexprocessthatdependson
characteristicsoftechnology,workers,environment,andsubtleinteractionsamongthese
components(BayerandMelone1989;Yetton,SharmaandSouthon1999;Wolfe,1994).
Belowwereviewthefactorsidentifiedtoaffecttechnologyusesinschoolsassociated
witheachofthesecomponents.
OrganizationFactors
Schoolshavebeencastasdirectlyatoddswithnewtechnologies.Thegoalof
schoolsasorganizations,accordingtoHodas(1993),isnottosolveadefinedproblem
buttorelievestressontheorganizationcausedbypressureoperatingoutsideofor
overwhelmingthecapacityofnormalchannels.(p.2)Inotherwords,schoolsnaturally
andnecessarilyresistchangesthatwillputpressureontheexistingpractices(Cohen,
1987;Cuban,1986).Whatappearstooutsidersasastraightforwardimprovementcan,to
anorganization,befeltasundesirablydisruptiveifitmeansthatculturemustchangeits
valuesandhabitsinordertoimplementit.(Hodas,1993,p.2)Theintroductionof
computersrequiresseriouschangesinthecurriculum,teachingpractices,reallocationof

TechnologyUsesinSchools
resources,andperhapsrearrangingthefundamentalstructureofschools(Collins,1996;
Hawkins&Sheingold,1986;Means,1994;Merrow,1995).Consequentlyschoolsand
teachersmaybelessimpressedbythepromisesofthecomputerdeliveredthanits
advocates.Orworse,Papert(1998)notes:
Bythetriggeringofsomethinglikeanimmunesystem,andIamlooking
attheeducationsystemaskindofalivingorganism,thiscomputerthat
cameinwasaforeignbodythatthreatenedtheestablishedorderofthe
systemandlikeallsystemsthistriggeredadefensemechanism.(p.3)
Besidesthisinherentresistancetochange,schoolsarealsosaidtohaveastructure
thatpreventswidespreadusesofcomputers.Collins(1996)inhisreflectiveessayonhis
experiencewiththeAppleClassroomofTomorrow(ACOT)projectciteslimited
classroomspaceandthebulkysizeofcomputers,teachers'unwillingnesstotakethe
studentstothelab,andlackofaccesstocomputersathomeasfactorsthatlimittheuseof
technologyinschools.Moreseriousproblems,however,liebeyondtechnologicalor
physicalstructuresintheconceptualstructureofschools.
...thestructureandconceptionofschoolthatevolvedinthelastcenturyisquite
incompatiblewitheffectiveuseofnewtechnologies.Theviewofteachingas
transmissionofinformationfromteacherstotheirstudentshaslittleplacefor
studentsusingnewtechnologiestoaccomplishmeaningfultasks.Thefortyfive
minuteperiodmakesitdifficulttoaccomplishanythingsubstantialusing
technology.(Collins,1996,p.61.)
Sharingasimilarview,Papert(1999)comparesthecurrentschooltoa19th
centurystagecoachwhilenewtechnologiestoajetengine."Whentheytry[attachingthe
jetenginetothestagecoach]theysoonseethatthereisadangerthattheenginewould
shakethevehicletopieces.Sotheymakesurethatthepoweroftheenginewaskept
downtoalevelatwhichitwouldnotdoanyharm."Thusthestructureoftheschool
severelyhampersthepowerofnewtechnologiesforlearning(Means,1994).
4

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Lackofconvenientaccesstocomputers,inadequateinfrastructure,andpoor
planningareotherfactorsidentifiedtoaccountfortheunderutilizationof
computers(Cuban,1986;Smerdonetal.,2000;USCongressOfficeofTechnology
Assessment,1995).Lovelessblamescomputerlabsforthelackofuseofcomputers
because"labsdenyteacherstheflexibilityofdecidingwhentechnologyshouldbe
incorporatedintoinstruction,unwittinglyconveyingtostudentsthatcomputersarenot
centraltolearningandcertainlynotcentraltotheactivitiesoftheirclassrooms."(p.451)
Moreover,itwasfoundthatmanyschoolslackahealthyhumaninfrastructure
thatsupportstechnologyinnovationsintheclassroom(Zhaoetal.,2002).Teacherswho
areinterestedinusingtechnologyintheirteachingoftenfeelthattheyneedbettersupport
fromthebuildinganddistrictthancurrentlyavailable.Suchsupportincludesboth
technicalandsocial.Teachersneedstrongtechnicalsupportsotheycanbesurethatthey
haveaccesstofunctionalequipmentandnetwork.Theyalsoneedsocialsupportinforms
ofprofessionaldevelopmentopportunities,softwareandhardwarepurchases,user
policies,andaprofessionalcommunityoflikemindedcolleagues.Otheraspectsof
teachersworkingconditionsnotdirectlyrelatedtotechnology,suchasbusyschedules,
crowdedcurricula,lackofaccesstoaprofessionalcommunityandsupport,havealso
beenidentifiedasimportantfactorsaffectingtechnologyuses(Cuban,1996;Smerdonet
al.,2000).
TeacherFactors
Amorefrequentlycitedsetoffactorsaffectingtechnologyusesinschoolsis
associatedwiththeteacher.Followingthestandarddiffusionliterature(e.g.,Rogers,
1995),teachersattitudestowardandexpertisewithtechnologyhasoftenbeenidentified
askeyfactorsassociatedwiththeirusesoftechnology(Becker,2000a;Bromley,1998;
Hadley&Sheingold,1993;Sandholtz,Ringstaff,&Dwyer,1997;Smerdonetal.,2000;

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Zhao&Conway,1999).Unlessateacherholdsapositiveattitudetowardtechnology,it
isnotlikelythatshewilluseitinherteaching.Teacherspedagogicalbeliefsandtheir
teachingpracticesarealsofactorsthatseemtoinfluencetheirusesoftechnology
(Becker,2000a,2000b;Hadley&Sheingold,1993;Sandholtzetal.,1997;Zhao&
Cziko,2001).

TechnologyFactors

Technologyitselfhasalsobeennamedasthesourceofasetoffactorsthataffect
itsusesbyteachers.First,thereareconflictingideasaboutthevalueoftechnologyand
henceconflictingadvicetoteachersabouthowtechnologyshouldbeusedin
schools(Cuban,1999).Thisleadsteacherstoastateofconfusionaboutthetrue
educationalvaluesoftechnology.Second,theconstantchangingnatureoftechnology
makesitdifficultforteacherstostaycurrentwiththelatesttechnology.Everydaynew
softwareandhardwarebecomesavailable.Teachers,whoarealreadystrugglingfortime
andenergy,finditdifficultanddiscouragingtokeepchasingthiselusivebeast.Third,the
inherentnatureofunreliabilitymakestechnologylessappealingformostteachers(Cuban,
1999;Zhaoetal.,2002).Technologyisinherentlyunreliableandcanbreakdownatany
timebutteachers,whohaveonlyalimitedamountoftimeinfrontofstudents,cannot
spendthetimetroubleshootingproblemstheymayormaynotbeabletosolve.Thus
unlessthereisastrongneedfortheuseoftechnologyandreliablesupport,teachersmay
optnottouseitintheirteaching.
Insummary,previousresearchhasresultedinalong,almostexhaustive,listof
factorsthatmayaffecttheuses(orlackthereof)oftechnologyinschools.Howeverthere
lacksanorganizingframeworktosortouttherelevantimportanceofthesefactorsand
identifytherelationshipsamongthem.Inotherwords,althoughweknowthesefactorsall
insomewayinfluencetechnologyusesinschools,wehavelittleideaabouthowthey
interactwitheachotherorwhichoneshavemoreinfluenceovertheadoptionof

TechnologyUsesinSchools
technologybyteachers.Consequently,researchinthisareaisindesperateneedofa
frameworkthatcanhelpitmovebeyondsimplyverifyingthecorrelationbetween
teacherstechnologycompetencyandtechnologyusesoridentifyingnewfactorstoadd
tothelaundrylistoffactorsassociatedwithtechnologyuses.Finally,thesefactorsare
discussedindifferentterms;somecognitive,somesocial,someorganizational,some
technological,andstillsomepsychological.Totrulyunderstandtheprocessof
technologyadoption,weneedoneframeworkthatallowsustotalkaboutthesefactorsin
similarterms.
Toaddresstheseproblems,weborrowtheecosystemmetaphortoformthebasis
ofatheoreticalframeworkthatmayhelporganizethesefactorsinmoremeaningfulways.
Ourorganizationofthebarrierstoimplementationintermsofinteractionsamong
teachers,technology,andschoolcultureslendsitselftothemetaphorofspeciestospecies
interactionwithinthecontextoftheecosystem.Inthefollowingsection,wefurther
discussthismetaphorandhowitmayhelpusbetterunderstandthefactorsassociated
withtechnologyusesinschools.

InformationEcologies:TheEcosystemMetaphor
Theecosystemmetaphorcanhavetwolevelsofanalysis.Atthemicrolevelthe
metaphorattendstointeractionsbetweenspecificspecieswithinanecosystem,whileat
themacrolevelitcharacterizeshowthedifferenthierarchicalcomponentsofasystem
interactwitheachother.Themetaphorhasalreadybeenappliedateachlevel.Atthe
microlevel,theecosystem(orecology)metaphorhasbeenusedtodiscusstechnology
uses,characterizingtheroleofinformationintheecologyoftheschool(Nardi&O'Day,
1999).Atthemacroleveltheecosystemmetaphorhasdrawnattentiontokeyfactors
affectingorganizationalsurvivalandsystemicchange(Bidwell&Kasarda,1985;Hannan
&Freeman,1984;Sarason,1971).Belowweextendpreviousapplicationsbyintegrating

TechnologyUsesinSchools
themetaphormorefullyintoconceptsandlanguage,especiallydrawingonthemetaphor
tocharacterizerelationshipsamongspeciesandcontexts.
Webeginourpresentationoftheecologicalmetaphoratthemicrolevel.Nardi
andODayrefertosettingswheretechnologyisusedasinformationecologies,which
aresystemsofpeople,practices,values,andtechnologiesinaparticularlocal
environment.(p.49).AccordingtoNardiandODay,
[T]heecologymetaphorprovidesadistinctive,powerfulsetoforganizing
propertiesaroundwhichtohaveaconversation...Aninformationecologyisa
complexsystemofpartsandrelationships.Itexhibitsdiversityandexperiences
continualevolution.Differentpartsofanecologycoevolve,changingtogether
accordingtorelationshipsinthesystem.Severalkeystonespeciesnecessarytothe
survivaloftheecologyarepresent.Informationecologieshaveasenseoflocality.
(p.5051)

Ateachersteachingenvironmentcanbeviewedasaninformationecology.Itisa
complexsystemofmanypartsandrelationship.Withintheclassroom,teachers,students,
books,dictionaries,projectiondevices,workbooks,desksandotherspeciesinteract
witheachotherincertainwaystoformasystemthatenableslearningtotakeplace.Just
likeinabioecology,theclassroomecologyexhibitsplentyofdiversityinthatithas
manydifferenttypesofspecies,eachofwhichhasadifferentsetofcharacteristicsand
playsadifferentrole.Theircharacteristicsandrolesaffectoneanothercontinuously,
constantlymodifyingtheirrelationshipswitheachother.Aclassroomecologyalsohasits
ownhistoryandlocality.Thehealthofanecologyisindicatedbytherelationships
amongitsspeciestowhatdegreedotheyperformcomplimentaryfunctions?Dothey
allowformaximallearning?Isonespeciesplacingsomuchexcessivestressonthe
systemthatitaffectsitsbalance?

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Theecologicalmetaphorprovidesaframeworktobetterexaminetheintroduction
processofcomputersinschools.First,itrecognizestheindividualhistoryandlocalityof
eachschool.Becauseeachschool,asaninformationecology,hasitsownsetofpractices
andrelationshipsamongthevariousspecies,theextentofimplementationdependson
timeandplace.Thusthestudyoftechnologyintegrationmustconsiderexistingpractices,
relationships,andparticipants,includinghumanandnonhumanartifactsintheschool.
Second,theecosystemmetaphorhighlightsprocessesofcoadaptation.Likethe
introductionofalienspeciesinanexistingecology,ittakestimefortheexistingspecies
andthenewspeciestointeractwitheachother,tofigureouteachothersroles,andto
eventuallycoadapt(ornot).Thus,weshouldavoidtakingsnapshotsofanymomentof
thisprocessasthefinalstate.Instead,weshouldconsiderwhatweobserveatanygiven
momentastheresultofpastevolutionandastartingpointforfuturedevelopment.
Third,theecologymetaphorfocusesourattentiononthenatureofindividual
participants,andviewsthemasactiveparticipants.Weviewteachersaspurposefuland
rationaldecisionmakerswho,inthefaceofaninnovation,behaveinwayssimilartoany
speciesinanecologyfacingtheintroductionofanewspecies.Theymakerational
calculationsofthebenefitstheymayreceivebyacceptingorsupportingtheinnovation
andcoststheinnovationmaybring(Zhao&Cziko,2001).Thebenefitsandcostscanbe
inavarietyofforms:socialstatus,salary,studentachievement,andtime.Thus,the
ecosystemframeworkeasilyaccommodatesnewideasabouttheimportanceofsocial
capital,addressinghowandwhyrationalactorsprovideandaccessresourcesthrough
socialrelations(Bourdieu1986;Coleman1988;Frank,2002).Itisimportanttonotethat
thecostsandbenefitsarenotnecessarilyactualbutperceived.Thuswhenateacherfaces
anewwayofdoingthings,shemakesavaluejudgmentbasedonhercurrentknowledge,
beliefs,andattitudes,whicharedeeplygroundedinhercurrentpracticesandtheschool
cultureinwhichsheteaches.

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Wenowturntothemacrolevelecosystemmetaphor.Ateachersteaching
contextisanecologywithinalargermultilevelecosystem.Webeginwiththe
governmentlevelsandsocietalinstitutionsthatmostlybroadlydefinetheecosystem.As
documentedintheintroduction,thereisstronginstitutionaldemandatthesocietallevel
toplacecomputersinclassrooms,evenifthereisdebateabouttheeducationalvalueof
computers.Statesandthefederalgovernmentcansupporthardwareandconnectivity,as
wellasprovidesmallamountsoftraining(e.g,federalgrantprogramssuchaserate,the
TechnologyLiteracyChallengeFunds,theTechnologyLiteracyChallengegrants).
Districtsalsocansupporthardwareandsoftwareandaremorelikelyresponsiblefor
trainingandopportunitiestolearn.Thoughtheyundoubtedlyaffectteacherstechnology
use,societalinstitutionsandfederal,state,anddistrictpolicies,areremotefromany
giventeachersclassroomexperience.Assuchtheycanbethoughtofasgeological
forcesthatshapethegenerallandscapesthatteachersinhabitasprofessionals.
Thelocallandscapeisshapedbyschoolsandtheirsocialcontexts.Withrespectto
technology,itisschoolsthatprovidereleasetimegivingteachersopportunitiestoengage
technology,anditisotherteacherswhocanexertpressuretousecomputersorwhocan
providecontextualizedinformationaboutthevalueandimplementationoftechnology.In
theecosystemmetaphor,schoolsdefinethesubsystemthataffectsthedaytoday
availabilityofresourcesandinwhichtheteachermustsucceed.
Becausetypicallymorethanoneteacherineachschoolteacheseachsubjectand
grade,subjectsandgradedefineniches.Ateachersnicheisdeterminedby
characteristicsthatareinherentintheteachersprofessionalroleandareindependentof
anyspecificresourceoraction.Forexample,thegradeinwhichateacherteachesis
generallyunaffectedbyanyspecificinnovationorresourcethatenterstheclassroom
(althoughorientationtoteachingmayberesponsivetoinnovationsthatattemptto
directlytransformteaching).

10

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Withintheecosystemmetaphor,eachofthecharacteristicsdescribedsofar
essentiallydefinescharacteristicsthatcanbeattributedtoeithertheindividualorthe
environment.Butteachersmaywellviewtheappearanceofcomputersintheclassroom
aswouldmembersofonespeciesviewanewspeciesenteringtheenvironment.From
theperspectiveoftheteacher,computertechnologyisaresourcethattheymayuse.But
thatresourcemaycompetewithotherresourcessuchascurricularmaterials,standardized
tests,etc.,forteachersattentionandthesupportoftheschool(Zhaoetal.,2002).
Therelationshipbetweentwospeciesemergesinthecontextofthesubsystem.
Teachersformattitudesandcompetenciesduringinteractionswithcomputers,andthe
schoolcontributestothecontextinwhichtheinteractionsoccur.Forexample,districts
andschoolscanprovidereleasetimeandstartupsupport,easingtheimmediatedemands
forsurvival.Theotherteachersintheschoolcanprovideresourcesorcompetition,
dependingonthecultureoftheschool.Schoolscanalsochangethetechnologyasa
species.Forexample,schoolscaninfluencethepurchaseofsoftware,theinstallationof
software,thecompatibilityofsoftwareandthecurriculum,etc.Thustheschoolasthe
subsystemiscriticaltotherelationshipbetweenteacherandtechnology.
Initsfinalanalysis,howandtowhatextentteachersusetechnologyisdetermined
bytheresultsoftheirrationalcalculationofpotentialcostsandbenefitsassociatedwith
usingtechnology.Althoughanecologyconsistsofmanyactors,relationships,andis
influencedbythelargerecosystemsinwhichitislocated,therationalcalculationofcosts
andbenefitsbyaparticularspeciesisextremelylocal,basedonlyonconditionsthathave
directandcloseimpactonthespecies.Inthecaseoftechnologyintegration,forexample,
despitethefactthatateachersenvironmentisnestedinschools,andschoolsindistricts,
whichinturnareaffectedbystateandnational,eveninternationalcontexts,what
influencesateacherscalculationofpossiblebenefitsandcostsassociatedwithusing
technologyareonlyfactorsthatbeardirectimpactonher.Thisis,however,certainlynot
tosuggestthatschool/districtlevelorstate/nationallevelfactors(e.g.,mandatestatewide
11

TechnologyUsesinSchools
assessment,fundingchanges,etc.)donothaveanyimpactonteachersbehaviors.Rather
wesuggestthatthesefactorscaninfluenceateachersbehavioronlyastheybecome
local,thatis,whentheyareinterpretedintermsofconditionsthatcanbedirectlyfeltby
theteacher.Forinstance,thenationalurgencytopushtechnologyintoschoolsaffectsa
teachersthinkingonlywhenitbecomespressurefrompeoplecloselyassociatedwithher
suchascolleagues,students,theprincipal,orsuperintendent.Ultimately,ateachers
adoptionofcomputertechnologywilldependontheteachersspecificattitudestowards,
perceivedvalueof,andcompetencewiththetechnologyandperceptionofthedegreeto
whichtechnologycomplementshisorherteachingstyle.Thesehypothesesare
consistentwiththestandarddiffusionliterature(e.g.,Rogers,1995)thatemphasizesthe
interactionoftheindividualandtechnology.Thisisanalogoustothesituationofglobal
warming.Whileweknowthatithaspotentialimpactonvirtuallyallofussoonerorlater,
mostofusonlyconsideritinourdailyactivitieswhenitbringsextremelyhotweatheror
floods.
Thusfar,wehavediscussedthepotentialutilityofapplyinganecological
perspectiveinconsideringtechnologyusesinschools.Wehavealsooutlineda
frameworkforunderstandingfactorsaffectingtechnologyuses(seeFigure1).Firstthe
ecosystemmetaphornaturallyrepresentsthemultiplelevelsofschooling(Barr&
Dreeben,1977,1983;BidwellandKasarda,1980;forareview,seeFrank,1998)interms
ofthenestingofsystemsandsubsystems.Ofcourse,notallprocessesareneatly
organizedbythenestingstructure.Justlikeweathereventscanpenetratealllevelsofan
ecosystemsimultaneously,soinstitutions(e.g.,useofWindows,presenceofcomputer
labs,etc.)canpenetratemultiplelevelsofschoolingsimultaneously.Similarly,resources
canbeallocatedtoschoolsfromanylevel,deliveredeitherdirectlytoschoolsorthrough
blockgrantsallocatedfromoneleveltothenext.

12

TechnologyUsesinSchools
InsertFigure1abouthere

Withintheclassroom,theecosystemmetaphorfocusesourattentionontheroleof
theteacherasakeystonespecies.Itistheteacherwhomediatesbetweenstudentsand
existingtechnologythroughherteachingpracticesanditistheserelationshipsthatnew
technologymustaltertobesuccessfullyimplemented.Towardsthisend,ateachers
beliefsareacriticalfactorincharacterizinghowaccommodatingthesystemwillbe
towardsnewtechnology.
Butthisframeworksofarisstillcloudyinthatitdoesnotspellouthowandhow
mucheachofthesefactorscontributestotechnologyusesinschools.Inthenextsection
wepresentastudythatattemptstoteaseouttherelativesignificanceofeachsetof
interactionsandthemechanismsthroughwhichthefactorsaffecttechnologyuse.
Sample
Becauseofourinterestinunderstandinghowinstitutionalfactorsmayaffect
technologyuse,wechosewholeschooldistrictsasourfirstlevelofanalysis.Atotalof
fourdistrictswereselectedfromoneMidwesternstate.Sinceourinterestwasalsoto
assesstechnologyusesandunderstandwhatmightaffectthelevelandtypeoftechnology
usesinschools,weneededschoolsthathadtechnologyavailabletoteachersand
students.Thusweonlyselectedschoolsthathadmadesignificantinvestmentsin
technologybetween1996and2001.
Operationally,thecriteriausedtoselectdistrictsforparticipationinthestudy
includedrecentpassage(between1996and2001)ofabondreferendumorreceiptofa
communityfoundationgrantforimplementationoftechnology,thewillingnessofthe
SuperintendentofSchoolstoparticipateinthestudy,andthesizeofthedistrict.

13

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Becausewewantedtostudythesocialdynamicsoftechnologyimplementation,
wefocusedonelementaryschoolsthattendtobesmallerandinwhichtechnology
supportismorelikelytobeafunctionofinformalprocessesthanofaformally
designatedstafforcenter.Wewerealsointerestedinunderstandingpossiblebuilding
leveldifferences,soweincludedallelementaryschoolsintheselecteddistricts.Inorder
toobtainthecompletepictureoftechnologyusesweadministeredthesurveytoall
schoolstaff.Weofferedincentivestoschoolsforhighresponseratesandtoindividual
teacherstocomeascloseaspossibletoenumeratingtheentirefacultypopulation.
Ultimatelyweachievedaresponserateof92%orgreaterineachofournineteenschools.
Table1presentsbackgroundinformationofthesampleschooldistricts.These
datasuggestthatoursamplehadmoreaccesstotechnologythanthenationalaverage
(Cattagni&Farris,2001).Wealsocomparedoursampleswithotherschoolsinthesame
stateonotherbackgroundvariables.Notsurprisinglystudentsattendingthesampled
schoolscamefromslightlyhigherincomefamiliesthantheaverageintermsof
percentageofstudentswhoqualifiedforfreeorreducedcostlunch.Howeverthesampled
schoolswerenotsubstantivelydifferentfromotherschoolsonothermeasuressuchasper
pupilexpenditure,studentteacherratio,andschoolsize.

InsertTable1abouthere

DataCollection
Wecollectedthreetypesofdata:surveyofallstaff;interviewswith
administrators,technologystaff;andinterviewsandobservationsinonefocalschoolin
eachdistrict.Thesurveyincluded33variousformatitems(e.g.,LikertScale,multiple
choice,andfillintheblanks).Theinterviewsweresemistructuredlooselyfollowinga

14

TechnologyUsesinSchools
setofquestionsabouttechnologyinfrastructure,policy,investment,andbeliefsregarding
technology.Theobservationsmainlyfocusedonthetechnologyinfrastructureofa
building.Thedatacollectionwascompletedinthespringof2001.Aprofessional
independentresearchfirmwascontractedtoperformthedatacollection.

Findings
Thissectionincludesthreeparts.Part1reportsfindingsoncurrentusesof
technology.Part2describesmeasuresofthevariousfactorsassociatedwithusesof
teacherandstudentcomputersinparticular.Part3presentsfindingsofastatisticalmodel
thatdelineatesfactorsthatinfluencecomputeruses.
CurrentTechnologyUsesinSchools
Towhatdegreearetechnologiesusedinschools?
Table2presentsthepercentageofteacherreportsofthefrequencyoftheiruseof
commonschooltechnologiesforeducationalorprofessionalpurposes.Themost
frequentlyusedtechnologiesarephonesystems,email,andcomputersintheclassroom.
Thisfindingisconsistentwithanecosystemmetaphorinwhichsimplertechnologies
requiringlittleadjustmenttoexistingpracticesaremorefrequentlyused.Interestingly,
teachersusecomputersmoreintheclassroomthaninthecomputerlab,whichis
somewhatcontrarytotheobservationofLoveless(1997).Thismaybetheresultof
recentinvestmentinmoreandbettercomputersintheclassrooms.Itisalsothecasethat
computersintheclassroomsaremoreconvenienttousefortheteacher,especiallywhen
theyareusedforsimplerfunctionssuchassurfingtheInternetandprocessingemails.

InsertTable2abouthere

15

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Notethatthoughlittlepreviousresearchattendstothephonesystem,thephones
areusedalmostdaily.Thephone,albeitnotascomplexatechnologyasthecomputers,
canbeapowerfulcommunicationtoolforteachers.Frequentusesofthephonecould
transformtheteacherfrombeingisolatedintheschoolhouse(Tyack&Cuban,1995)or
classroom(Lortie,1975)topotentiallyintegratedwithparents,colleagues,otherschools,
andcommunitymembers.Thusthephoneiscriticalinintegratingdifferentlayersofthe
ecosystem.
Drawingontheecosystemmetaphor,thesedifferenttechnologiescanbe
consideredpotentiallycomplementaryorcompetitive.Clearlyaphonesystemandvoice
mailcanbecomplementary,withteachershavingthecapacitytoengageinconversation
ortakemessageswiththetechnology.TherearealsoexamplesofvideoandTV
networksbeingintegratedwithcomputertechnology.Butperhapsnotconsideredas
frequentlyisthepotentialfortechnologiestobecompetitive.Ifteachersrely
increasinglyonphonesforcommunicationtheymayhavelessneedofemail.Similarly,
ifteachersrelyonvideoandTVforelectronicpresentationstheymaynotneed
Powerpointpresentationsoncomputersforthesame.Clearlyfromtheanatomical
standpointthesearedifferenttechnologies.Butfromtheecosystemstandpointtheymay
competeforthesameniche,thatis,attentionfromtheteacherandamountoftimeor
frequencyofusesintheclass.
WhatKindofTechnologyUsesareTeachersEngagedin?
Besideslevelsofusesofvarioustechnologies,wefocusedspecificallyonthe
typesofcomputerusesinschools.Herewegobeyondaskingaboutpercentageoftime
teachersorstudentsusedcomputers,toaskabouthowcomputerswereusedbecause
computers,unlikephones,holdthepotentialforqualitativelydifferenttypesofuses.

16

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Thisdrawsontheecosystemframework,focusingoninwhatwaysspeciesinteractrather
thanjustthefrequencyofinteraction.
Wealsodifferentiatebetweenteacheruseofcomputersandstudentuseof
computers.Teachersmayapplytechnologyfortheirownprofessionaluse(e.g.,to
developmaterials)butnottheirstudents(e.g.,forstudentpresentations),orviceversa.
Thisdistinctionalignswithourapplicationoftheecosystemmetaphoratmultiplelevels.
Whenateacherusescomputersforherownpurposesitbenefitsherdirectlyatthemicro
levelasanorganism,perhapsmakinghermoreefficientorengagingherinterest.Onthe
otherhand,studentsarethecommonresourceofthesystem.Thuswhenateacher
facilitatesstudentusesofcomputersshecontributesmoredirectlytosystemicvalue,
whichmayhavelessdirectandimmediatebenefits.Ofcourse,thisdistinctionbetween
teacherandstudentusesandbenefitsisnotpure.Forexample,whenteachersgain
efficiencythroughtheirownusethismayimprovelearningandhaveimmediatesystemic
benefits,orwhenteachersfacilitatestudentusethismayhaveimmediatebenefiton
classroommanagement.Perhaps,though,theecosystemmetaphorismostbeneficial
whenthereisambiguity,helpingusappreciatethemotivationsoftheteacherbothas
selfishorganismandasmemberofasystem.Thereforewereportourfindingsseparately
forteacherandstudentuses.
Table3presentsthepercentagesoffrequenciesofteacherandstudentactivities
usingcomputers.Theoverallreliabilityofstudentusesis.75andofteacherusesis.66
(thelatterisbasedononlythreeitems,withcorrelationsrangingfrom.36to.42).The
mostfrequenttypesofusesarecommunicationwithparentsandpreparationfor
instruction,whiletheleastareactivitiesdirectlyinvolvingstudentsusingthecomputers
(e.g.,studenttostudentcommunication,remediation,studentinquiry,andstudent
expression).Thisfindingagainconfirmstheassumptionthatsimplertechnologiesthat
requirelittlechangeareusedmorefrequently.Asweknowcomputershaveabroadrange
ofuses,somemorecomplexthanothers.Communicationwithparentsandpreparation
17

TechnologyUsesinSchools
forinstructionaremuchsimplertoimplementthanusesthatinvolvestudentsbecausethe
latterrequiresteacherstoreconfiguretheirteachingpracticewhiletheformerdoesnot.
Table3alsosuggeststhatteachersusecomputersmoreforcommunicationwith
parentsthanwithstudents.Inlightofteachersfrequentuseofthephone,wemay
hypothesizethatteachershaveastrongneedtobreakdownLortieswallsteachershave
theneedtocommunicatewithparentsandcolleagues,butthenecessarytechnologywas
absentatthetimeofLortiesstudy.Teachersinfrequentuseofcomputersfor
communicationwithstudentsmaybeexplainedbythefactthatpresentlymost
communicationwithstudentsoccursfacetofaceintheclassroom.Likeorganismsinan
ecosystem,teachersusecomputerstoaddresstheirmostdirectneeds,whichbringsthem
maximalbenefits,inwaysthatdonotdemandexcessiveinvestmentintimetolearnand
reorganizetheircurrentteachingpractices,thusminimizingcosts.

InsertTable3abouthere

FactorsAffectingTechnologyUsesinSchools
Inthispartwedescribeourmeasuresoffactorsthathavebeenpreviously
identifiedtohaveapossibleimpactonschooltechnologyuses.Wethenassessthe
importanceofeachfactorinanoverallmodel.Usingtheecologicalmetaphor,we
organizeourfactorsaccordingtothosedefiningthesubsystem,theteachersniche,
teachersubsysteminteraction,teachercharacteristics,teachercomputerinteraction(as
speciestospecies),andopportunitiesforcoadaptation.Factorsincludedinthisstudy
wereselectedfromtwobodiesofliterature:1)researchontechnologyusesinschoolsand
2)theliteratureonthediffusionofinnovations.Weindicatefactorsdescribedinthe
diffusionliterature(e.g.,Wolfe,TornatzkyandFleischer)withbold(#itemsindicate

18

TechnologyUsesinSchools
thosefoundtobestrongestgeneralpredictorsofdiffusionbyTornatzky&Klein1982).
Allmeasuresbasedona7pointLikertscalingrangingfromstronglydisagreeto
stronglyagreeunlessotherwisespecified.
Subsystem
Weincludedthreedummyvariablestodifferentiatethefourdistrictsfromwhich
ourteachersweresampled.

Niche
Nichewasmeasuredbysetsofdummyvariablesforsubjectsandasingletermindicating
gradelevel.Wealsoincludeddummyvariablestoindicateteacherswhohadtaught
multiplegradesandwhosegradewasunknown.
TeachersubsystemInteraction
Status:theextenttowhichaninnovationisadoptedinthequestofprestigeratherthan
organizationalprofitoreffectiveness(Mohr1969).Atthesubsystemlevel,thisisbased
onateachers(asanorganism)perceptionsofhowothersrespondtoadaptationtonew
technology(asanewspecies).Measurebasedonthefollowingitem:
Usingcomputershelpsateacheradvancehis/herpositioninthisschool.

Teacherperceptionofdistrictsupport:theextenttowhichteachersperceiveadequate
supportfromthedistrict.Intheecosystemframework,thisistheperceptionofthe
supplyofanotherspeciesasapotentialresource.Twomeasures,forhardware
(alpha=.88)andsoftware(alpha=.88),basedoncompositesofresponsestoitemswiththe
stem:Pleaseratethedistrictintermsofthefollowing:
Hardware:

19

TechnologyUsesinSchools
providingenoughhardware;
choosingappropriatehardware;
providingareliableserver;
updatinghardware;
providingtechnicalsupportforhardwareuse;

Software:
providingenoughsoftware;
choosingappropriatesoftware;
updatingsoftware;
engagingteachersindecisionsaboutsoftwarepurchases;
providingprofessionaldevelopmentforsoftwareuses;
providingtechnicalsupportforsoftwareuse;
recognitionfortechnologicalinnovations.

AdequacyofResourcesandSupport:theextenttowhichteachersfeelitiseasyto
implementtechnologyintheirteaching.Intheecosystemframework,thisisameasure
oftheconditionsfacilitatingcoadaptation.Basedonacompositeofthefollowingitems
(alpha=.80):
Thecomputerresourcesinmyroomareadequateformyinstructionalneeds(e.g.,
lessonandunitplanning,accessingmaterialssuchaspictures);
Thecomputerresourcesinmyroomareadequateforstudentuses(e.g.,student
research,writing,artwork);
Itiseasytoimplementnewsoftwareinthisschool;
Itiseasytoimplementnewhardwareinthisschool.

20

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Helpreceivedfromcolleagues.Teachersdrawonhelpfromothersintheirschoolsand
districtstoimplementcomputers.Definingsocialcapitalasthepotentialtoaccess
resourcesthroughsocialrelations(Bourdieu1986;Coleman1988;Putnam1993;seeLin
2001,Portes1998,orWoolcock1998,forrecentreviews),FrankandZhao(2002)argued
thatanactorwhoreceiveshelpthatisnotformallymandateddrawsonsocialcapitalby
obtaininginformationorresourcesthroughsocialobligationoraffinity.Thusthe
ecosystemmetaphorintegratessocialcapitalthroughsociobiology;membersofaspecies
perpetuatetheirgenesbysupportingmembersoftheirclan.Thatis,teachersinvestin
eachotherbecauseoftheirsharedinterestsincommonstudents(Frank,2002).
FollowingFrankandZhao(2002),wedevelopedameasurebasedonthetotal
amountofhelpeachteacherreceivedfromothers.Critically,socialcapitaltheory
suggestsitisnotjusttheamountofhelpreceived,buttheresourceprovidedthroughthat
help(Burt;Coleman;Lin;Portes).Inthiscase,theresourceconveyedbythehelp
dependsontheexpertiseoftheproviderofhelp.Expertisecouldnotbeindependently
measuredbyteachersuseoftechnologyatatimepriortotheprovisionofhelp,therefore
itcannotbeusedaspartofanindependentvariablepredictingtheuseofhelp(Marsden
&Friedkin).Asaproxyforexpertise,wemeasuredhowmucheachteacherprovided
helptoothers,reasoningthatthemoreapersonwascalleduponandabletoprovidehelp
toothers,themoreexpertshewas.Thus,themeasureofsocialcapitalweusedwas
basedontheamountofhelpteachersreceived,weightedbytheextentprovidersofhelp
helpedothers.Ultimatelywedevelopedtwomeasuresofhelp,basedonhelpreceived
fromclosecolleaguesandhelpreceivedfromotherswhowerenotlistedasclose
colleagues,differentiatingbasedonwhetherateacherlistedthehelpproviderasa
colleagueornot.Wemadethisdistinctionbecausetheapplicationofhelpmaybehighly
contextualized.Thusthevalueofhelpmaybehighlydependentontheextentofthe
relationshipandknowledgesharedbyproviderandreceiver,asdistinguishedbywhether
providerandreceiverwerecolleaguesornot.
21

TechnologyUsesinSchools

Pressuretousecomputers:FrankandZhaoalsoarguedthatsocialcapitaloperates
throughsocialpressure.Anactorwhoexertspressurealsodrawsonsocialcapitalby
usingthethreatofdetachmentorostracizationtodirectanothersbehavior.
Correspondingly,organismsthatwishtopreservetheirstandinginaclanconformtopeer
pressure.Wemeasuredsocialpressurethroughtwoitems(correlatedat.26):
Usingcomputershelpsateacheradvancehis/herpositioninthisschool;
Othersinthisschoolexpectmetousecomputers.
Presenceofcompetinginnovations:theextenttowhichotherinnovationsexistinthe
school.Intheecosystemframework,multipleinnovationsmaycompeteforresources
andthussystemsmaybelimitedintheircapacitytoaccommodatemultiplechanges.
Measuredwithoneitem:

Weintroducemanynewthingsinthisschool.

Playfulness:theextenttowhichtheindividualinteractswithaninnovationwithout
havingtoproduceimmediateproductsorresults(Agarwal&Prasad1998).Thisis
characterizedhereasaninteractionbetweenteacher(species),technology(species),and
district(subsystem),basedonthefrequency(Never=0,Yearly=1,Monthly=2,Weekly=3,
Daily=4)withwhichateacherreportedopportunitiestoexperimentwithdistrict
supportedsoftware.

Teacher(singlespecies)Characteristics

22

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Generaltendencytoinnovate:theextenttowhichtheteachertendstoinnovate.Inthe
ecosystemthisisarisktakerorwanderer.Measuredwiththefollowingthreeitems
(alphaof.74):
Itrynewthingsintheclassroom;
Iamoneofthefirsttotrysomethingnewintheclassroom;
Ienjoyintroducingsomethingnewintheclassroom.
TeacherComputer(speciesspecies)PredispositiontoCompatibility
#compatibility:thedegreetowhichaninnovationisconsistentwithexistingvalues,past
experiences,andneedsofpotentialadopter(Tornatzky&Klein1982).Compatibilityis
similartomagnitude(Beyer&Trice1978)anddisruptiveness(Zaltmanetal1973)in
thathighlycompatibleinnovationsdonotrequirelargedisplacementsoforganizational
states.Intheecosystemmetaphorthisreflectstheinherentcompatibilityofthetwo
species,teacherandtechnology.Measuredwiththefollowingfouritems(alphaof.74):

ComputerssupportwhatItrytodointheclassroom;
Computersdistractstudentsfromlearningwhatisessential*;
Computersareflexible;
Itiseasytointegratecomputerswithmyteachingstyle.

#complexity:theextenttowhichaninnovationisperceivedasrelativelydifficultto
understandanduse(Tornatzky&Klein1982).Thisissimilartoeaseofuse(Davis
1989;Igbaria&Iivari1995;Mumford&Gustafson1988),selfefficacyanduncertainty
(Zaltmanetal1973).Intheecosystemmetaphor,thisreflectstheenergyrequiredfor
coadaptationbetweenteacherandtechnology.Measuredwithasingleitembasedonthe
percentageoftimeateacherwasabletosolvetechnicalproblemsonherown.

23

TechnologyUsesinSchools

#relativeadvantage:extenttowhichaninnovationisperceivedasbeingbetterthanthe
ideaitsupersedes(Rogers1993;Tornatzky&Klein1982;Zaltmanetal1973).Thisis
similartocentralitythedegreetowhichtheinnovationconcernsthemajordaytoday
workoftheorganizationandinvolvesactivitiescriticaltoorganizationalperformance
(Nord&Tucker1987).Itisalsosimilartopervasivenessandscope(Beyer&Trice
1978;Zaltmanetal1973)andperceivedusefulness(David1989;Hage1999;Igbaria&
Iivari1995).Intheecosystemmetaphor,thisistheadvantagetoteachersasrational
actorsinacompetitiveenvironment.Measuredwithtwosetsofitemsforperception
computerscanhelpteachers(alpha=.92)andperceptionthatcomputerscanhelpstudents
(alpha=.89):
Computerscanhelpme...
integratedifferentaspectsofthecurriculum;
teachinnovatively;
directstudentlearning;
modelanideaoractivity;
connectthecurriculumtorealworldtasks;
bemoreproductive.

Computerscanhelpstudents...
developnewwaysofthinking;
thinkcritically;
gatherandorganizeinformation;
exploreatopic;
bemorecreative;
bemoreproductive

24

TechnologyUsesinSchools
TeacherProfessionalDevelopment(opportunitiesforcoadaptation)
Givenourecosystemmetaphor,weviewprofessionaldevelopmentas
opportunitiesforspeciesspeciescoadaptation.Interestingly,nosubsetofthe
mechanismsforcoadaptation(e.g.,theformsofprofessionaldevelopment),formeda
reliablescale.Perhapsinthiscontextteachersviewmultiplemechanismsforadaptation
asredundantandthereforeasmutuallyexclusiveactivities.Thereforeweexploredeffects
ofthefollowingactivitiesseparately:
Seekhelpfromotherstolearnaboutnewtechnologies
Readprofessionaljournalsaboutnewtechnologies
Explorenewtechnologiesonmyown(playfulness:Agarwal&Prasad1998).
Attenddistrictorschoolinserviceprogramsfornewtechnologies
Attendprofessionaldevelopmentconferencesaboutnewtechnologies
Consulttechnologymanuals
FactorslistedbyWolfe(1994)notexplored
Wedidnotexplorethefollowingcharacteristics(describedbyWolfe,1994)
becausewehypothesizedtheywereoflimitedrelevanceinstudyingtheimpactof
computertechnologyinschools:

divisibility:thedegreetowhichtheinnovationisatightpackageofinterlinkedpartsas
opposedtobeingaloosecompositeofindependentpartsthatcouldbeadopted
separately(Tornatzky&Klein1982).Thesoftwareusesofcomputersare,bydefinition,
independentpartsandconstantacrossschools.
observability:theextenttowhichtheresultsofaninnovationarevisibletoothers
(Tornatzky&Klein1982).Preliminaryanalysesofpilotdataindicatedthiswasnota

25

TechnologyUsesinSchools
strongpredictorofinnovationadoption.Insteadweexploredtheeffectofperceived
statusandpressuretousecomputers.
physicalproperties:differentiatesmaterialorphysicalobjectinnovationsfromsocial,
programmatic,orprocessinnovations(Warner,1974).Thisissimilartoform(Rogers,
1995)ormaterialversussocialinnovations(Tornatzky&Fleischer,1990).Wedidnot
includemeasuresofphysicalpropertiesbecausecomputerstakemultipleforms,andwe
anticipatedthiswaslesssalientforcomputerinnovationsthanformechanicalinnovations
inmanufacturing.
skill:theextentofspecializedexpertiseortrainingneededtousetheinnovation
effectively(Meyer&Goes,1988).Thisconstructissimilartocomplexity,whichwedid
measure.Furthermore,weassumedmostpeopleneedsometraininginhowtouse
computersforspecifictasks.
AnEcosystemModelofInfluencesonTechnologyUse
Inthenextsection,weusemultipleregressiontoevaluaterelativerelationships
amongthefactorsandteacherandstudentuseofcomputers.Weusetheecosystem
frameworktoorganizethepresentation,reportingincreasesinR2asaresultofadding
eachsetoffactors,fromsubsystemdesignationthroughopportunitiesforcoadaptation.
Notethatbecauseourschoolswereallcommonlyembeddedinthesamestate(and
thereforefederal)government,aswellasexposedtothesamesocietalinstitutions,wedid
notaccountfortheseexplicitlyinourmodels,althoughtheyarerepresentedinour
theory.Werestrictourdiscussiontofactorswithstandardizedcoefficientsofmagnitude
greaterthan.1andofstatisticalsignificancep<.05,althoughwedescriberelationships
withstandardizedcoefficientsbetween.07and.1andstatisticallysignificantatp<.10as
moderate.

26

TechnologyUsesinSchools
InsertTable4abouthere

Ourfindingssupportamultilevel,richlycontextualizedsetofinfluencesthatwe
interpretwithrespecttotheecosystemmetaphor.Tobegin(atthebottomofthetable),
thereweremoderatedifferencesamongdistricts(districtsaccountedforabout11%14%
ofthetotalvariationforstudentandteacheruseofcomputersrespectively).Once
districtswereaccountedfor,differencesamongschoolsaccountedforlessthanonetenth
ofapercentoftheoverallvariation(thisfindingwasconfirmedwithmultilevelmodels).
Thiswassurprisingtous,essentiallysuggestingthatthedistrict,nottheschool,defines
theprimarysubsystem.Thismaybeaccountedforbythefactthatwhenitcomesto
technology,policy,investment,expertise,andprofessionaldevelopmentissuesare
addressedatthedistrictlevel,leadingtoessentiallyauniformpatternofimplementation
acrossallschoolsinonedistrict.Itmaywellbethatthoughthesubsystemsofschoolsare
certainlydistinctfromeachotherbecausetheycontaindifferentpopulations,theeffects
ofsubsystemsdefinedbyschoolsdonotdifferfromeachother.Similarityisonlyinthe
aggregateofuse,notinthepatternofdistributionorintheinteractionaroundtheuse.
Eachcommunityhasitslionanditslamb,eveniftheyarenotthesamelionandlamb.
Regardlessofwhethertheschoolordistrictdefinesthesubsystem,mostofthe
variationincomputeruseiswithinthesubsystem.Tobegin,theteachersniche,defined
byhisorherstructurallocation,hadlargeimpactsonuse.TeachersofEnglishwere
especiallylikelytousecomputersandteachersinuppergradesweremoderatelymore
likelytousecomputers.NichesaccountedforincreasesinR2of7%to20%,thus
supportingargumentsthatsimplestructuralpositionsdifferentiateadoptionrates.
Movingup,teachersubsysteminteractionaccountedforanadditional11%to
14%ofvariationexplained.Teacherswhoperceivedpressurefromcolleagueswere
morelikelytousecomputersfortheirownpurposes,andteacherswhoreceivedhelp

27

TechnologyUsesinSchools
fromcolleaguesweremorelikelytousecomputerswiththeirstudents.Thus,consistent
withFrankandZhao(2002),socialcapitalaffectsusage.Butheretherationalityof
socialcapitalispresentedwithinthecontextoftheecosystemmetaphor.Immediateand
contextualizedhelpfromcolleaguescanaddressconcernsabouttechnicalobstaclesthat
candisruptlearningtimeinusingcomputerswithstudents.Ontheotherhand,teachers
ownactionsmaybemoreresponsivetolocalsocialcontexts,includingsocialpressureof
otherteachers.Thusthesubsystemcanbebothahelpandahindrance.Othersaremore
willingtohelpwhenthefocusisoncommonstudents.Ontheotherhand,thesubsystem
candemandcompliance,atleastintermsofateachersindividualbehavior.
Thereisstrongsupportfortheecosystemhypothesisthatnewspeciescompete
witheachother.Teacherswhoperceivedtheirschoolimplementsmanynewinnovations
werelesslikelytoimplementcomputersforstudentusesandmoderatelylesslikelyto
usecomputersfortheirownimmediategoals.Therewasalsostrongevidencethat
teacherswhohadopportunitiestoexperimentwithdistrictsupportedsoftwareused
computersmoreforstudentpurposes,andmoderatelysofortheirownpurposes.Note
thoughstillbasedonselfreport,thatthispredictorismorerelatedtoteachersbehaviors,
suggestingthatbothperceptionsofthesubsystemandinteractionswithitareimportant.
Teacherpredispositiontocoadaptationaccountforanadditional5%to8%
increasesinR2.Mostimportantly,themoreateacherbelievedthatcomputerswere
compatiblewithherteachingstylethemoretheteacherreportedusingcomputersfor
herselfandwithherstudents.ThisconfirmsthefindingsofTornatzkyandKlein(1982),
butisalsoconsistentwiththeecosystemmetaphorundertheconceptofcomplementary
species.Likeallprofessionals,teachersusetheirjudgmentandunderstandingofthe
localcontexttoevaluatethevalueofinnovation.Finally,teacherswhoperceivea
relativeadvantageforcomputersforthemselvesreportedmoreusageforthemselvesand
moderatelyfortheirstudents.Again,thoughthisconfirmsboththeTornatzkyandKlein
(1982),castingitasrelativeadvantagewithintheecosystemmetaphorhelpsus
28

TechnologyUsesinSchools
understandwhytheperceivedadvantagetotheteacher(asopposedtothestudent)may
beparticularlyimportant.
Finally,opportunitiesforcoadaptationadded1%to3%tothevarianceexplained
incomputerusage(controllingforallpreviouslyreportedeffects).Mostimportantly,
teachersreportedmoreusageofcomputerswhentheyhadexplorednewtechnologieson
theirown.Thisexplorationlikelyenabledteacherstobetterunderstandthevalueof
technologyanddeveloptheabilitytousetechnology,thusreducingtheperceivedcostsof
usingtechnology.Moreover,thisfindinggoesbeyondthecognitiveeffectsofthe
standarddiffusionliterature.Hereagaintheecosystemmetaphorapplies,suggestingthat
themorecontacttwospecieshavewithoneanotherthemoretheycoadapt.Notethat
readingprofessionaljournalsandseekinghelpfromothersalsohadborderline(interms
ofstatisticalsignificance)relationshipswithstudentuseofcomputers.
UnimportantFactors
FactorsdescribedinthemeasuressectionbutnotreportedinTable4were
discardedbecausetheircoefficientssuggestedtheywereneithersubstantivelyimportant
norstatisticallysignificant.Weleftafewfactorsinthemodeltoestablishthattheywere
notassociatedwithuseofcomputers,oncecontrollingforothercharacteristics.These
weretheperceivedcomplexityofcomputers,theperceivedrelativeadvantageof
computersforstudents,andhelpfromotherswhowerenotclosecolleagues.Weneeded
tocontrolforperceivedcomplexitybeforeinterpretingtheassociationbetweenhelp
receivedandusebecausetherearesometeacherswhoarehighusersbutreceivelittle
helpbecausetheythemselvesperceivedthatcomputerswerenotcomplexordifficultto
use.Indeed,thecoefficientsforhelpreceivedincreasedoncecontrollingforexpertiseof
theteacher.Thefactthatperceivedrelativeadvantageforstudentshadnegative(orzero)
coefficientsemphasizestherationalnatureofteachersdecisions,whichdependmost

29

TechnologyUsesinSchools
directlyontheirownusesandneeds(notethatperceivedrelativeadvantageforstudents
hadlargercoefficientsbeforecontrollingforperceivedrelativeadvantageforteachers).
Finally,itisimportanttoestablishthathelpfromthoseotherthanclosecolleagueshad
essentiallyzerorelationshipwithreportedusewhereashelpfromcolleaguesishighly
relatedtostudentuseofcomputers(thecoefficientsaredifferentbymorethantwo
standarderrors).Thusitappearsthathelpismoreimportantwhentheproviderand
receivershareknowledgeandhistory.
TeachersasIndividualOrganismsandasMembersofaSubsystem
Theecosystemmetaphorprovidesaframeworkformanyoftheindividual
findings.Factorsdesignatingthesubsystem,niche,teachersubsysteminteractions,
teacherpredispositionsforcompatibilityandopportunitiesforcoadaptationeachhad
uniqueandimportantrelationshipswithreportedusesofcomputers.Moreover,the
ecosystemmetaphoroffersasubtledistinctionbetweensetsofrelationships.
Specifically,teacherpredispositionforcompatibilitywasmoreimportantforteacheruse
ofcomputerswhileteachersubsysteminteractionsweremoreimportantforstudentuse
ofcomputers(withtheexceptionofperceivedpressuretousecomputers,whichmay
operateasmuchonpredispositionsforcompatibilityasdirectlyoncomputeruse)i.Thus
teachersweremoreresponsivetothesubsysteminengaginginbehaviorsthatposition
thegeneralresourceofthesubsystem,thestudents,forsuccess.Incontrast,when
teachersconsideredtheirownbehavior,theirpersonalpredispositionsweremost
important.Thesecomplementaryfindingsemphasizehowteachersrelatetonew
technologyintheirecosystemasindividualorganismsaswellasmembersofalarger
socialsystem.
Discussion
Wewishtoemphasizethatmanyofthecomponentsthataffecttechnologyinhere
ininformalspacesoftheschool,thesocialaspectsthatarealsoakeypointofdeparture

30

TechnologyUsesinSchools
forecosystems.Inparticular,theinformalhelpandinformationteachersprovidetoeach
otherhaveimportantassociationswithcomputerusethatarecomparabletothoseofmore
commonlyacceptedfactors.Theinformalsocialpressurethatteachersexertonone
anothercanalsohaveamoderateeffectonuse.Finally,theplayandexperimentation
thatteachersengageinduringcracksintheschooldayandoutsideoftheschoolcontext
arecriticaltotechnologyimplementation.Thisfindingstronglysupportsthefundamental
conceptoftheecologicalframeworkinthatcoadaptationbetweenspecies,especially
betweenexistingandnewspecies,takesfrequentcontactandactiveinteractionsatalocal
level.
Ultimately,theinformalsocialorganizationoftheschoolfiltersmanyofthe
effectsontechnologyuse.Followingtheecosystemmetaphor,teachersimmediate
localecologyplaysavitalroleinshapingtheirreactionstotechnology,analienspecies
introducedintotheecology.Throughinformalinteractionswithinthelocalecology,
teachersmakesenseofexternalopinionsandinformationandexertpressureonone
anothertoconformtointernalnorms.Inotherwords,whatisimportantforteachersis
theirpeersinthelocalenvironment.
Thepatternsoftheseinformalprocessesarelikelyuniquetoaschoolscollegial
structure.Forexample,inourfindings,teachersweremorestronglyinfluencedbyhelp
fromcolleagues.Thusteacherswhohavedifferentcolleagueswillhavehelpresources
likelyresultingindifferenttechnologyuse.Inotherwords,differentpeerswilltranslate
intodifferentuses.Thereforethedistributionoftechnologyimplementationisverymuch
afunctionofthedistributionofsocialprocesseswithintheschool.Orviewedfromthe
ecologicalperspective,thedynamicswithinthelocalecologyaffectstheinteractionsof
existingspecieswithnewones.
ThekeyfindingsofthisstudyaredepictedinFigure2.Figure2consistsofthree
progressive(evolutionary)picturesthatillustratethestagesoftechnologyadoption.
Pleasenotethatthisisnottosuggestthatthereareonlythreestagesinthisprocess.We
31

TechnologyUsesinSchools
viewthisprocessasongoing,thuseachofthesecanbeviewedasrepresentingamoment
intime,connectedtothepastandleadingtothefuture.Startingwiththetopphase,onthe
left,thedistrictprovidesthehardware,establishingthepresenceofthetechnology.This
districtforceisshowntranscendingthebarrieroftheschool,becauseanyvariationin
technologyassociatedwithschoolscouldbeattributedtodistrictsinourdata.Districtin
servicetechnologyattemptstomediatebetweenteacherandtechnology,butisshownas
barelyenteringtheschool(topofthefigure),basedonourempiricalfindings.Atthe
sametimethatthetechnologyisintroducedintotheschool,otherforcesentertheschool.
Institutionspenetratetheschoolwalls,asindicatedbythewavesintheupperleftand
lowerrightcorners.Newpedagogiesenteratrightthroughapermeablemembrane,
representingtheneedforareceptiveteacher.Theseforcescanpotentiallybeabsorbed
andtransmittedthroughcollegialtieswithintheschool,asshownbythesolidlines.

InsertFigure2abouthere

Atthecenterofeachphaseistheinteractionbetweenafocalteacherand
technology.Initially,thetechnologyhasacertaincapabilities,representedbytheshape
ofthetechnology.Theteacherperceivesthevalueofthetechnologythatmayreflectthe
teachershistory,pedagogicalpractices,etc.Inphase2,theteacherandtechnology
changeshapesastheycoadapt.Notethattheteachersmodificationsareinfluencedby
thehelpshereceivesandpressuresheperceivesfromothers(shownbythedottedlines).
Theseotherteachersmaythemselvesbereactingtoinstitutionsorotherforcesexogenous
totheschool.Thisshowshowforcesofthelargerecosystemareconveyedby
relationshipswithinthesubsystemoftheschool.
Inthelastphase,thetechnologybeginstoconformtotheteacher,asteachers
developthecapacitytomodifysoftwareandhardwaretosuitetheirneeds.Butthefocal

32

TechnologyUsesinSchools
teacheralsocontinuestochangeshapeassheinteractswiththeteacheroriginally
exposedtothenewcurriculum(dashedline).Thischangemakesthefocalteacherless
compatiblewiththenewtechnology,thusshowinghowmultipleinnovationscan
competewitheachother.Asaset,thephasesshowhowmultipleforcesoutsidethe
schoolcanaffectthecoadaptationofteacherandtechnology.
ImplicationsforResearch
Theecosystemframeworkseemstobeapowerfulwaytoorganizeandexamine
thevariousfactorsassociatedwithtechnologyusesinschools.Thisframeworksuggests
thatfutureresearchshouldpaymoreattentiontounderstandingtherelationshipsand
processesofhowthevariousfactorsaffecttechnologyusesinschoolsratherthan
identifyingnewfactors.Somepossiblelinesofinquiryderivedfromthisframework
includethefollowing.
First,thismodelimpliesthattheprocessoftechnologyadoptionisoneofco
adaptation.Thusafactormayplaydifferentrolesatdifferenttimes.Forexample,
experimentationwithtechnologymaybemoreimportantafterateacherisalready
introducedtothebasicsoftechnology.Sinceparticipantsinourstudyarefromschool
districtsthathadalreadybeenpromotingtechnologyusesforsomeyears,thedynamics
oftheecosystemmaybedifferentfromthoseschoolsthatareeitheratthebeginningora
laterstageoftechnologyadoption.Therefore,oneofthesuggestionsforfutureresearch
wouldbetostudyschoolsthatareatdifferentstagesoftechnologyadoption.
Second,thismodeldrawsspecialattentiontoteachersrationalcalculationof
costsandbenefitsofadoptingtechnology,oranyinnovationforthismatter.This
calculationisbasedonperceptionratherthanreality.Itwouldthusbefruitfulto
investigatewhatinfluencesteachersperceptionsandhowteachersperceptionscanbe
changedmostefficiently.

33

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Third,thisstudyhighlightsthevitalroleoflocalcontext,i.e.,theecologywhere
teacherswork,infilteringexternalresources,opinions,andinnovations.Itwouldbe
beneficialtofurtherexploretheinternalsocialdynamicsamongexistingspeciesandthe
newspecies.Ofparticularinterestistocontinuetheexplorationofwhatconstitutes
keystonespeciesandhowtheyaffectothersintheprocessoftechnologyadoption.
Finally,theecologicalframeworkimpliescompetitionamongspecies.Inthis
studyweexaminedtheusageofmultipletechnologies(e.g.,phone,email,etc.)and
multipleusesofonetechnology(computers).Wedidnot,however,lookatthe
interactionsbetweenotherspeciesintheteachingecology(e.g.,books,references,
librariesetc.)andtechnology.Itwouldbefruitfultostudytheseinteractionsastheymay
provetobemajorsourcesoffactorsthatinfluencetheusesoftechnology.Ifweareto
taketheecologicalmetaphorseriously,wewouldassumethattheresourcesinanecology
(inthiscaseteacherstimeandenergy)isconstant.Spendingmoretimeandenergyon
onespecieswouldmeanareductionoftimeandenergyonotherspecies.Consequentlyif
ateacherusesbooksorworksheetsmore,shewillbydefinitionusetechnologyless.
ImplicationsforPolicyandPractice
Indrawingpolicyimplicationswenotetwoimportantcaveats.First,oursample
ismoderatelymoreadvantagedthantheaverageelementaryschoolinthestateinwhich
thestudywasconducted.Furthermore,oursampledschoolscomefromonlyfour
districts,and,aswefoundthatdistrictsarethesourcesofvariationamongschools,we
haveaverysmallsampleofakeysourceofvariation.Second,weanalyzedcross
sectionaldata.Thusweknowmanyfactorsthatarecorrelatedwithcomputeruse,but
anycausalinferencesareweak,andthereforepolicyimplicationsshouldbecautious.
Thatsaid,weendeavortodrawsomepreliminarypolicyimplications.Finally,wedelay

34

TechnologyUsesinSchools
ourapplicationoftheecologicalmetaphorsoastobeasdirectaspossibleinour
applicationtoschools.
Districtscaninfluence1015%ofcomputerusethroughthedecisionstheymake
tohiretechnologydirectors,provideresources,andestablishageneralvisionfor
technologyuse,andthishasnonnegligibleeffectsoncomputerusage.Thusdistricts
shouldundertakethesedecisionscarefully.
Butmostofthevariationinimplementationofcomputersiswithinschools.
Thereforewemustfocusontheteacherlevelfactorsthataffectusage.Thefactorsthat
areassociatedwithcomputerusagemapontofourbasicmechanismsforchange:
recruitment/selection,training/socialization,providingopportunitiestoexploreandlearn,
andleveragingthroughthesocialcontext.First,teachercharacteristicssuchasgradeand
subjectandtheextenttowhichcomputerscomplementtheteachingstyleareimportant
predictorsofcomputerusage.Butthemostlikelymechanismforaffectingchangesin
thiscategoryisthroughattritionandrecruitment/selection.Theclearpolicyimplication
istoconsiderhowadaptableateacherwillbetoplantechnologiesinhiringnewteachers.
Second,changeagentscanprovidetrainingopportunitiessuchasthroughin
serviceandprofessionaldevelopmentconferences.Butourevidencesuggeststhatthese
activitiesmayhavelittleeffectonusageintheclassroomforthecommonteacher.Most
likelytheyoperatethroughsocializingteachersintodifferentbeliefsregardingthevalue
oftechnology.
Third,changeagentscanprovidevariousopportunitiestoexploreandlearnabout
newtechnologies.Thesehavesurprisinglystrongeffectsonbothteacherandstudentuse
ofcomputers.Thissuggeststhatdistrictscoulddowellsimplytoallowteachersrelease
timetoengagetechnologyandconsideritsapplicationsinwithintheirspecificcontexts.
Fourth,changeagentscanleveragechangethroughthesocialcontext.Bygiving
teachersopportunitiestohelponeanotherandtointeract,schoolsmaybeabletoincrease
theoverallleveloftechnologyuse.Butleveragingthroughthesocialcontextisadouble
35

TechnologyUsesinSchools
edgedsword.Ashelpismostimportantwhencomingfromacolleague,thosewithfew
colleaguesmaynotbeabletoaccessthetypeofhelptheyneedtoimplementcomputers.
Also,socialpressurecanbeasstrongaforceworkingagainsttechnologyasinfavorof
technology.Thissuggeststhatchangeagentsshouldbeveryawareofthesocial
structuresandtheschoolculturesinwhichtheyoperate,andshoulddeliberatelyaddress
shortcomingsandpitfalls.Thisrecommendationisalsoconsistentwiththefindingthat
teachersimplementcomputerslesswhentheyareaskedtoimplementmanyothernew
things.Changeagentsshouldthusbeawareofthestressonthesocialcontextandculture
beforeattemptingtoimplementfurtherinnovations.
Ourfindingssuggestseveralprogrammaticpossibilities.First,insteadofspending
timeoninserviceprogramsandconferences,districtscouldspendtheirresourcesgiving
teachersopportunitiestoexplorecomputerapplications.Encouragingly,teachersare
alreadyengaginginthesetypesofbehaviorsrelativelyfrequently,butitisuncertainhow
muchofthisactivityissupportedbydistricts.Second,teachersshouldbegiventimeto
helponeanother.Thusindividualizedreleasetimeforexplorationmaynotbeashelpful
asgrouporientedactivitiessuchasatechnologyplaydayincludingdistrictsupportbut
withampleopportunityforteacherstohelponeanother.Buttheseinteractionsshouldbe
guidedandfocusedonincreasinglevelsoftechnologyuse.Third,schoolsthattryto
adoptmultipleinnovationssimultaneouslymayfindthatnonearefullyimplemented.
Thusschoolsshouldlimitthenumberofinnovationstheytrytoimplementanddevote
ampleresourcesonthosetheydochoose.
Theseproposalscanbesummarizedas:
1. Considerteachingstyleasitcomplementscomputerusagewhenhiring
teachers.
2. Giveteachersopportunitiestoexperimentwithsoftwareanddemonstrated
applications;

36

TechnologyUsesinSchools
3. Considerprovidingopportunitiesforteacherstointeractinsteadofstandard
professionaldevelopment;
4. Focusonasmallnumberofinnovationsatanygiventime.

Eachofthesepoliciestakenseparatelyisborneoutbythedata.Buttheybecome
integratedundertheecosystemmetaphor.Inparticular,themetaphormakesusaware
thatinnovationsareintroducedinto,andmusttakeaccountof,systemsandsubsystems
thatarelikesmallecologies.Thuschangeagentsmustaccountfortheextenttowhich
organismsintheecosystemarepreparedtoaccommodatechange(implication1),they
mustallowopportunitiesforcoadaptation(implication2),theymustallowforadaptation
throughthesocialprocessesofthesystem(implication3),andtheymustnotoverburden
thesystem(implication4).
Theecologicalmetaphoremphasizesthesystemicimplicationsoftheintroduction
ofanyinnovation.Acceptingtheecologicalmetaphor,innovationscannotbe
implementedoblivioustotheinternalsocialstructuresofschoolsorotherpressures
schoolsmustface.Bythesametoken,weviewattemptsatsystemicreformasambitious
asattemptstoreformwholeecologies.Ouremphasishereisonthesystemicinteractions
generatedbyinnovation.

37

TechnologyUsesinSchools

References

38

TechnologyUsesinSchools

Table1BackgroundInformationofDistricts
District

StudentPopulation

DistrictType

Student/ComputerRatio*

2041

Rural/Suburban

5.1

5111

Suburban

4.9

1638

Ruralsuburban

2.9

7158

Rural/Suburban

4.4

Note:Studentcomputerratioisaverageforalldistrictinstructionalcomputersas
ofMarch2001.

Table2FrequencyofTechnologyUses

Phonesystem(M=4.76)
Voicemail(M=3.72)
Video/TVnetwork(M=3.4)
WorldWideWeb(M=3.96)
Email(M=4.62)
Computersinyourschoolslab(M=3.45)
Computersinyourclassroom(M=4.57)

Never

Yearly

Monthly

Weekly

Daily

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)
80.30
36.70
19.90
33.30
80.40
7.70
78.30

0.50
12.60
9.60
3.70
3.30
10.50
5.10

39

0.20
6.80
9.40
3.70
2.30
10.10
0.70

2.10
13.30
32.30
18.00
4.20
11.00
4.10

16.90
30.60
28.80
41.20
9.80
60.70
11.70

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Table3.FrequencisofComputerUsingActivities
Activity
TeacheruseofComputers
Preparationforinstruction(e.g.,lessonandunit
planning,downloadingmaterialssuchaspictures)
(M=3.57)
Communicationwithparents(e.g.,newsletters,e
mail,classWebpage)(M=3.38)
Teacherstudentcommunications(e.g.,responseto
writtenwork,postingschedulesandactivities)
(M=2.75)
StudentUseofComputers
Classroommanagementand/orincentivesfor
students(e.g.,rewardforcompletedwork)(M=
2.68)
Recordkeeping(e.g.,grades,attendance,IEP)
(M=2.39)
Studentinquiry(e.g.,studentresearchusing
electronicdatabases,WebQuest)(M=2.17)
Studenttostudentcommunication(e.g.,publish
studentworkonaWebpage,keypals,egroup
projects)(M=1.54)
Corecurriculumskillsdevelopment(e.g.,drill
andpracticeonMathBlasterorReaderRabbit)
(M=2.96)
Remediation(e.g.,repeatalesson,Accelerated
Math,Jostens)(M=2.42)
Developmentofbasiccomputerskills(e.g.,
keyboarding,mouseskills,troubleshooting)(M=
3.02)

Never
(%)

Yearly
(%)

Monthly
(%)

Weekly
(%)

Daily
(%)

8.60

6.90

26.70

34.30

23.60

11.20

5.60

29.50

41.00

12.60

34.00

7.90

21.40

21.90

14.80

36.80

7.70

17.80

26.20

11.50

48.40

7.60

15.00

14.10

14.80

42.10

13.10

31.20

12.60

1.00

73.30

8.00

11.20

6.10

1.50

26.20

3.60

29.60

29.10

11.50

47.50

4.40

18.00

19.00

11.10

27.40

4.10

15.30

45.10

8.00

40

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Table4.FactorsAffectingTechnologyUsesinSchools

ii
StudentUseofComputers

TeacherUseof
Computers
Unstandardized
Standardized
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Coefficients
Coefficients
(Constant)
.0369

.4793

(.280)
(.346)
R2=.52
R2=.43
OpportunitiesforCoadaptation
explorenewtechnologiesonown
.0524
.057
.1852***
.174
(.043)
(.054)
seekhelpfromothers
.0800a
.073
.0436
.034
(.048)
(.060)
readprofessionaljournalsaboutnewtech
.0837a
.076
.0036
.003
(.045)
(.055)
R2=.51
R2=.40
TeacherPredispositionfor
Compatibility
PerceivedCompatibility
.1105*
.123
.1714**
.165
(.047)
(.058)
Perceivedcomplexity
.0318
.039
.0578
.061
(.032)
(.040)
Relativeadvantage:computerscanhelp
.1065a
.113
.2007**
.185
theteacher
(.054)
(.067)
Relativeadvantage:computerscanhelp
.0426
.038
.1154
.090
thestudent
(.059)
(.073)
R2=.46
R2=.32
TeacherSubsystemInteraction
Helpfromclosecolleagues
.0082**
.103
.0007
.007
(.003)
(.004)
Helpfromotherswhoarenotclose
.0020
.049
.0008
.016
colleagues
(.002)
(.002)
Pressuretousecomputers
.0284
.044
.0779*
.104
(.027)
(.033)
PresenceofCompetingInnovations
.0922**
.114
.0729a
.078
(.033)
(.041)
Playfulness(experimentwithdistrict
.1693***
.188
.0973a
.094
supportedsoftware)
(.044)
(.055)
attenddistrictorschoolinservice
.1185a
.072
.1229
.065
programsfornewtechnology
(.068)
(.084)
R2=.32
R2=.21
TeachersNiche
TeachesEnglish
.4481***
.247
.2999**
.143
(.090)
(.111)
gradeteacherteaches
.0727**
.189
.0395
.089
(.023)
(.029)
teachesmultiplegrades
.0695
.036
.0163
.007
(.116)
(.143)
missinggradeinformation
.0620
.020
.3276a
.090
(.160)
(.198)
R2=.11
R2=.14
SubsystemDesignation
DistrictA
.3131
.185
.4399
.225
(.112)
(.138)
DistrictB
.1735
.090
.2406
.108
(.123)
(.152)

41

TechnologyUsesinSchools
DistrictC
Samplesize

.4605
(.126)
383

42

.190

.0048
(.156)
386

.002

TechnologyUsesinSchools
Table4.FactorsAffectingTechnologyUsesinSchools
StudentUseofComputers

TeacherUseof
Computers
Unstandardized
Standardized
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
Coefficients
Coefficients
(Constant)
.0369

.4793

(.280)
(.346)
R2=.52
R2=.43
OpportunitiesforCoadaptation
explorenewtechnologiesonown
.0524
.057
.1852***
.174
(.043)
(.054)
seekhelpfromothers
.0800a
.073
.0436
.034
(.048)
(.060)
readprofessionaljournalsabout
.0837a
.076
.0036
.003
newtech
(.045)
(.055)
R2=.51
R2=.40
TeacherPredispositionfor
Compatibility
PerceivedCompatibility
.1105*
.123
.1714**
.165
(.047)
(.058)
Perceivedcomplexity
.0318
.039
.0578
.061
(.032)
(.040)
Relativeadvantage:computerscan
.1065a
.113
.2007**
.185
helptheteacher
(.054)
(.067)
Relativeadvantage:computerscan
.0426
.038
.1154
.090
helpthestudent
(.059)
(.073)
R2=.46
R2=.32
TeacherSubsystemInteraction
Helpfromclosecolleagues
.0082**
.103
.0007
.007
(.003)
(.004)
Helpfromotherswhoarenotclose
.0020
.049
.0008
.016
colleagues
(.002)
(.002)
Pressuretousecomputers
.0284
.044
.0779*
.104
(.027)
(.033)
PresenceofCompeting
.0922**
.114
.0729a
.078
Innovations
(.033)
(.041)
Playfulness(experimentwith
.1693***
.188
.0973a
.094
districtsupportedsoftware)
(.044)
(.055)
attenddistrictorschoolinservice
.1185a
.072
.1229
.065
programsfornewtechnology
(.068)
(.084)
R2=.32
R2=.21
TeachersNiche
TeachesEnglish
.4481***
.247
.2999**
.143
(.090)
(.111)
gradeteacherteaches
.0727**
.189
.0395
.089
(.023)
(.029)
teachesmultiplegrades
.0695
.036
.0163
.007
(.116)
(.143)
missinggradeinformation
.0620
.020
.3276a
.090
(.160)
(.198)
R2=.11
R2=.14
SubsystemDesignation
DistrictA
.3131
.185
.4399
.225
(.112)
(.138)
DistrictB
.1735
.090
.2406
.108
(.123)
(.152)

43

TechnologyUsesinSchools
DistrictC
Samplesize

.4605
(.126)
383

44

.190

.0048
(.156)
386

.002

Thoughthepairsofcoefficientsareingeneralnotstatisticallydifferent(seeCohenandCohen,

1983,page111,forthetestbetweentwocoefficients.),asasetthetrendsupportsaninterestingand
valuableinterpretation.
ii

Notethatbecausetheoutcomevariablesforteacherandstudentuseofcomputerswereoriginally

correlatedat.55,weconfirmedtheresultsreportedinTable4usingastructuralequationmodel(usingtheSAS
Calismoduleaccountingforthecorrelationbetweenthetwooutcomes).Mostestimatesandstandarderrors
werewithin.02ofthosereportedinTable4.Mostinferenceswereconfirmed,withthefollowingexceptions:

thecoefficientforRelativeadvantage:computerscanhelpthestudentapproachedstatistical
significanceinthestructuralequationmodelforteacheruseofcomputers;

thecoefficientforteachingEnglishwasconsiderablyweakerandofborderlinesignificanceinthe
structuralequationmodelforteacheruseofcomputers;

thecoefficientforreadingprofessionaljournalswasstatisticallysignificantinthestructuralequation
modelforstudentuseofcomputerswhileitwasborderlineasreportedinTable4.
Theerrortermsforthetwomodelswerecorrelatedat.28,indicatingthatthesearerelativelydistinct

behaviorsafteraccountingfortheindependentvariables.